Kamala's main role

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pointing out your being dishonest when you're being dishonest is not a personal attack

Then just post the quote that proves I am being dishonest.  What have I said that you can prove is a lie?

Sounds pretty simple but I bet you can't do it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Here's the honest problem with Fred's line of thought. It allows for no subtleties or variations. It creates a strict hierarchy of victimhood that we must all adhere to. Jayden Smith lives a far more privileged life than anyone on this board, but according to the advocated mode of thought he is a black man and thus he is inherently more disadvantaged. Anderson Cooper was born into old as dirt privilege, but according to the advocated mode of thought he is a gay man and thus he is inherently more disadvantaged. Paris Hilton is a woman, is she more disadvantaged than any straight white man on this board? We all know Fred's answer and we all know why it's wrong.


I'll let the thread return to its original topic now, I just wanted to point out the inherent flaws in Fred's advocated position.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2020, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then just post the quote that proves I am being dishonest.  What have I said that you can prove is a lie?

Sounds pretty simple but I bet you can't do it.

Being dishonest is not synonymous with lying.  You do not argue from a point of good faith and it's been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people over the years.  This is merely the latest example of this.

[GMDino]

(11-09-2020, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then just post the quote that proves I am being dishonest.  What have I said that you can prove is a lie?

Sounds pretty simple but I bet you can't do it.

I guess he only cares about Trump's ego and not yours?

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being dishonest is not synonymous with lying.  You do not argue from a point of good faith and it's been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous people over the years.  This is merely the latest example of this.

But I do argue from a position of good faith.

Prove that I don't.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You obviously don't know the definition of "sexist".

Says the guy that claims that the able-bodied woman cashier I mentioned earlier faced more adversity than the wheelchair-bound man.

(11-09-2020, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact is that broad discrimination against women exists. 

Never said it doesn't. But just because many women face discrimination doesn' t mean they ALL face it.

(11-09-2020, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just like with racism you refuse to acknowledge that any discrimination exists unless the perpetrator signs a written sworn statement to the effect of "I am doing this because I am a racist and/or sexist". 

You complain that bfine siad you were being dishonest then turn around and make a bold faced lie like this? Ha! That's hilarious.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the honest problem with Fred's line of thought.  It allows for no subtleties or variations.  It creates a strict hierarchy of victimhood that we must all adhere to.  Jayden Smith lives a far more privileged life than anyone on this board, but according to the advocated mode of thought he is a black man and thus he is inherently more disadvantaged.  Anderson Cooper was born into old as dirt privilege, but according to the advocated mode of thought he is a gay man and thus he is inherently more disadvantaged.  Paris Hilton is a woman, is she more disadvantaged than any straight white man on this board?  We all know Fred's answer and we all know why it's wrong.

I never made any of those arguments.

All things being equal blacks suffer more discrimination than whites, women face more discrimination than men, and gay people suffer more discrimination than straight people.  The existence of rich black people does not mean there is no problem with racism in America.  And even though Anderson Cooper is rich as hell he would not have been allowed to get married to another man until 2015.  Now we have Kamala Harris who everyone here seems to agree is fully qualified to be Vice President, but a certain group keep claiming she got the job "just because she is a woman".

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 05:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Says the guy that claims that the able-bodied woman cashier I mentioned earlier faced more adversity than the wheelchair-bound man.

I never said that.

Stop with the lying.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I do argue from a position of good faith.

Prove that I don't.

Allow me, SSF.

Ahem:

(11-09-2020, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just like with racism you refuse to acknowledge that any discrimination exists unless the perpetrator signs a written sworn statement to the effect of "I am doing this because I am a racist and/or sexist". 

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 05:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said that.

Stop with the lying.

Sure. Right when you do.

[GMDino]

Is this one of those times when the "mean girls" gang up on someone? Then someone runs in to say they don't want the new board to me like that?

Asking for a clique.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2020, 05:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is this one of those times when the "mean girls" gang up on someone?  Then someone runs in to say they don't want the new board to me like that?

Asking for a clique.

Unfortunately, no.  This is a case of someone being called on their behavior.  I understand why you think it is different.  No one is ganging up on Fred.  Quite honestly the only person exhibiting an aggressive tone is Fred himself.  I think Fred has a lot of good ideas and thoughts, but when he chooses to twist the statements of others to suit his argument he is achieving the opposite of what he intends.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 05:04 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You complain that bfine siad you were being dishonest then turn around and make a bold faced lie like this? Ha! That's hilarious.

I apologize for accusing you of an extreme example.  But I stand by my assertion that you never believe any act is racist or sexist without some sort of smoking gun proof.  And that is still a problem.  We all know there is not always direct irrefutable proof of racism or sexism. So it seems like an attempt to diminish the impact of racism or sexism.  And that is what causes so much frustration among the victims.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 05:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Allow me, SSF.

Ahem:

I have edited that post.

I have not changed my position.  I just worded it in a more reasonable way.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I apologize for accusing you of an extreme example. 

I'd accept it if I knew it would never happen again.

(11-09-2020, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But I stand by my assertion that you never believe any act is racist or sexist without some sort of smoking gun proof.  And that is still a problem.  

Oh no. Being required to show evidence before declaring something? The HORROR!!

(11-09-2020, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We all know there is not always direct irrefutable proof of racism or sexism. 

No, there is not. But considering that some people throw the racism/sexism accusations like they're Oprah Winfrey giving out prizes to her audience, it's damn important in this day and age to actually be able to PROVE one's claims.

(11-09-2020, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So it seems like an attempt to diminish the impact of racism or sexism.

Of course you'd think that. You have no problem accusing people of racism or sexism without any evidence and you want to be able to continue to do so.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 01:06 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You have no problem accusing people of racism or sexism without any evidence and you want to be able to continue to do so.

I have never accused anyone of racism or sexism without evidence.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2020, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then just post the quote that proves I am being dishonest.  What have I said that you can prove is a lie?

Sounds pretty simple but I bet you can't do it.

I'll bet I can.

Go back and look at posts 12 and 13. You immediately change my stating being a woman was Biden's #1 criteria and perhaps sexist in nature to me stating Harris was only chosen "just because" she's a woman.

I've never stated before or afterward that being a woman was her only qualification. it's just a dishonest approach you chose to take so you can use words like 'stupid, Childish, and sexist"

[Lucidus]

This thread is a rather unfortunate example of current nature of political discourse.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll bet I can.

Go back and look at posts 12 and 13. You immediately change my stating being a woman was Biden's #1 criteria and perhaps sexist in nature to me stating Harris was only chosen "just because" she's a woman.

I've never stated before or afterward that being a woman was her only qualification. it's just a dishonest approach you chose to take so you can use words like 'stupid, Childish, and sexist"

You have repeatedly said it was his #1 qualification, but it was just one of many qulifications.

By saying it was the # 1 qualification you are implying that that was the #1 reason she was selected. But that is not true.

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have repeatedly said it was his #1 qualification, but it was just one of many qulifications.

By saying it was the # 1 qualification you are implying that that was the #1 reason she was selected. But that is not true.

One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Mr. Biden and his camp obviously wanted a woman, and seemed to prefer a minority as well. Those seemed to indeed be minimum qualifications to be the choice, however, the pool of candidates meeting those requirements contained many possible options. 

While it's fair to say those qualifications were seemingly required, it's not fair to say that criteria was the only reason Kamala Harris was chosen. There were others who met said criteria who were not chosen, so it would follow that in Biden's view, Harris was the most qualified of those that met the initial criteria.